User:Gloss/April Fools Day

Abolish RfA?

And Ye shall know Him for the mark - and the mark will be Blue, with a bit of punctuation and some yellowish color colours as well. And not be quite as good as a lot of other signatures.

I'd like to propose that we abolish the RfA system, and begin going by "Pedro's law" - all candidates must now go to User:Pedro's talk page and ask for permission, where he may then use his powerful ways to grant the tools. The only main criteria: The candidate must have a tail. Opinions? iMatthew :  Chat  00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Sounds good. Jake Wartenberg :  Chat  00:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Bow to Pedro - per my sig. the_ed17 :  Chat  00:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Of course. NocturneNoir :  Chat  00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• All hail Pedro. Useight (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• 3XEC - Oppose - How do we tell who doesn't have a tail? On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. X! :  Chat  00:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - yes. J.delanoy :  Chat  00:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• HAGGER??? I mean...yes, of course Acalamari :  Chat  00:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Sure Let's try it. :D--Res2216firestar :  Chat  00:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support per common sense. Wizardman :  Chat  00:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - I do not have a tail. Plus, why would we want to put poor Pedro through a hellish RfB?! Dylan620 :  Chat  00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong coffee Is "Pedro's law" related to the Peter Principle? Bencherlite :  Chat  00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Pedro is my hero Hermione1980 :  Chat  00:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support best proposal for 12 months, would a tale also do? WereSpielChequers :  Chat  00:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Of course it all makes sense now. Camw :  Chat  00:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Bibliomaniac15/Superiority. bibliomaniac15 00:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strike obvious valued community member's noncabal member's troll vote. NuclearWarfare :  Chat  01:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Pedro!! Until It Sleeps :  Chat  00:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete; non-notable. Coren :  Chat  00:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too many RfAs currently. Juliancolton :  Chat  00:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Agree sort of, but I'd prefer permission to be in either my own hands or those of my delegates. As much as I trust Pedro, I "trust" myself much more. Plus, I need the money I'd raise by selling off adminships to Microsoft and the Russian government. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Shappy :  Chat  00:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose, such a bad idea on so many levels. The Cool Kat (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, on second thought, not such a bad idea. You rule Pedro!!!! The Pink Phink :  Text me!  00:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support I've been brainwashed too. Giants27 :  Chat 
• Endorse, Overturn and Relist Support only on condition that Pedro refuses all requests on principle. Noroton :  Chat 
• Speedy merge WP:RFA with User talk:Pedro. NuclearWarfare :  Chat  01:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unless all existing admins are required to go through the process. With luck, we can get rid of the whole gang and start clean. Did I mention I'm an admin?-- Wehwalt :  Chat  01:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• !Vote for Pedro Nihiltres :  Chat 
  • Are you a liger?--Giants27 :  Chat  01:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Do not delete Forum on adminz rulz, should stay for on wiki --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC) — Ron Ritzman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• BALLEEEEETTTEEEE PLZ We should AGF and give everyone admin tools LetsdrinkTea 01:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Vote to XfD User:Pedro .. since I lost my tail in a lawnmower accident and am no longer eligible. Just kidding of course, you're the best Pedro.Ched :  Chat  01:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Cabal I mean ZOMG SuPP0rTz!!11!oneone!!. nn123645 :  Chat  01:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Support. BTW, why is everyone using Pedro's signature? MathCool10 :  Chat 

   IDK my BFF JILL?--Giants27 :  Chat  01:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete User Pedro lacks political experience. Wadester16 :  Chat  01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional Support: As long as Pedro has a tail. Chamal :  Chat  02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Cyclonenim :  Chat  07:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A side note

I did think that this edit summary was the funniest one I've seen for ages... Majorly talk 01:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No kidding.--Giants27 ^T/C 01:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Section break

I thought I'd put this here, just in case. Majorly talk 00:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it arbitrary?--Giants27 ^T/C 01:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, it is capricious.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

*Strong Delete - The arbitraryness of this section is clearly not established in any reliable sources. J.delanoy :  Chat  01:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

_{Struck probable sockpuppet of J.delanoy Camw :  Chat  01:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)}

StruckUnderlined probable sockpuppet of Camw NuclearWarfare :  Chat  01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

_{Another strike, I smell feet, oh wait that's my feet, I should put socks on.}--Giants27 :  Chat  01:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Abolish Wikipedia?

I'd like to propose that we abolish Wikipedia, and begin going by "Pedro's law" - all people wanting information must now go to User:Pedro's talk page (Pedropedia) and ask for the information to be provided to them, where he may then use his powerful knowledge to grant the information. The only main criteria: The request must include a vote for Pedro. Opinions? Camw :  Chat  02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I've heard this joke before... --Tango (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

_{Struck comment with incorrect signature format. Camw :  Chat  02:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)}